You know, the headline tries to make us hate the bank CEO because he refers to the women as "recovering prostitutes"... but in fact, they are recovering prostitutes, at least the ones they interviewed in TFA.

Believe me, there is no love here for goddamn bankers. But, there are billions of true and accurate reasons to hate them, it's a waste of energy and a distraction to create any more.

- Western & Southern Insurance Group for being a bunch of dicks- The bank executive who referred to them as "recovering prostitutes" (he should be publicly beaten in the way some of those women he's evicting probably have been)

/in my line of work, I get a lot of visits from women coming from such shelters//they don't need another "man" treating them like shiat

I guess no one read TFA, including subby.

[Evil executive], who has repeatedly declined requests for an interview, has become a loathed figure at the Anna Louise, not only for his tireless efforts to acquire the property but also for the way he has talked about the women living there, repeatedly referring to them as recovering prostitutes and saying they just don't belong in the neighborhood."That hurt. To be categorized," said Sherene Julian, 48, who escaped decades of drug addiction and prostitution when she moved to the Anna Louise. "It made me feel that I was lesser than."

jim32rr:FTFA: The women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. So what's the problem again?

FTA:

The historic downtown Cincinnati neighborhood where the women live, known as Lytle Park, became an important part of their recovery, since most were coming from dangerous parts of the city where it'd be easier to slip back into their former ways of life.

and

Under the deal with Western & Southern, the women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. It will be located in a shabby neighborhood on a busy street 2 miles north of where they are now. The nearest park is a 1.5-mile walk away, over a freeway.

doyner:WhippingBoy: jim32rr: FTFA: The women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. So what's the problem again?

Because outrage.

FTFA: But after losing a two-year fight with a Fortune 500 company determined to buy their beautiful, 104-year-old property and turn it into a boutique hotel - even though it wasn't for sale - the women of the Anna Louise Inn have to leave the neighborhood.

FTFA: The Anna Louise and its supporters didn't back down, vowing to fight Western & Southern with everything they had - until last week when they inked a deal with the company to sell the home for $4 million.

Blame the bank for being dicks, but it sounds like this place was only going to survive with the $13 million in tax credits they were trying to get. The bank fought them on the credits and they folded and sold.

This is the world Republicans want for all of us - the best small government money can buy. Can't afford to fight? Well, you're not God's chosen.

When Republicans refer to "small government", they're referring to resources, not size - a "big government" can fight the rich and win, because a "big government" has the resources to do so. A "small government" has little choice but to do what the rich want, because the rich have the resources to ensure that their will is done. This is a lovely example of what Republicans call "small government."

Couple that with "prosperity gospel," and you now know why so many Christians are right-wing - money makes you one of God's chosen. If you're rich, you must be morally superior, because God has given you so much in return for your actions. The bank is clearly on the side of righteousness, and the battered women's shelter clearly on the side of immorality, so the bank feels no shame in calling them "recovering prostitutes" - he's the one, after all, doing God's work, as evinced by his bulging bank account. Besides, a new building in a neighborhood more befitting their lowly station is being provided for them, at their cost - it's as God wills it.

Protesting isn't enough. People need to pull their money out of this bank. Revocation of prosperity is the only tool the rich understand, especially the religious rich.

Anderson's Pooper:Western and Southern are being pricks for throwing their weight around. However, after reading the actual article, it seems that some of the women currently residing there are, in fact, recovering prostitutes. I hope they get continuing help in their recovery whether here or at the new place.

rugman11:Blame the bank for being dicks, but it sounds like this place was only going to survive with the $13 million in tax credits they were trying to get. The bank fought them on the credits and they folded and sold.

So they wouldn't have gotten their tax credits anyway? That was the bank's entire strategy. They made sure it wouldn't survive.

grunthos:You know, the headline tries to make us hate the bank CEO because he refers to the women as "recovering prostitutes"... but in fact, they are recovering prostitutes, at least the ones they interviewed in TFA.

Believe me, there is no love here for goddamn bankers. But, there are billions of true and accurate reasons to hate them, it's a waste of energy and a distraction to create any more.

"Gee, a subset of battered women are recovering prostitutes, so I can use that brush on all of them! There's no difference between a homeless woman beaten for fun, or an ex-wife hiding from her stalking ex-husband/psychopath, or a woman trying to get out of prostitution after being stabbed by her pimp, after all - and all of those biatches are sitting on prime real estate, too!"

doyner:rugman11: Blame the bank for being dicks, but it sounds like this place was only going to survive with the $13 million in tax credits they were trying to get. The bank fought them on the credits and they folded and sold.

So they wouldn't have gotten their tax credits anyway? That was the bank's entire strategy. They made sure it wouldn't survive.

But the article says the tax credits were for renovations. Why couldn't they just keep the place running as is? Why were the only options tax credits or sell?

FormlessOne:PawisBetlog: Why does everyone keep saying bank when it's an insurance group? I work for a bank and we get enough bad press on our own thank you very much.

My bad. "Banker" sounds closer to "asshole", these days, than "insurer", although you are right in that both are typically assholes lately.

On one hand, on the other even Bankers haven't gotten the gaul to put a price tag on human life and worse try their damnedest to legally reneg on promises made to cover you in time of need. Both are callous industries worthy of the finest of french revolutions.

Is it just me or does anyone else think TFA didn't give all the pertinent info. It just doesn't add up. I can see how the shelter would say "F no" to the initial offer, but clearly the buyers were willing to negotiate. I get the feeling the shelter might have said "F no, at any price!"

So the buyers resorted to other tactics. But still willing to negotiate... $4M seems to be about what it was worth, maybe a little more (TFA said $1.8M was "less than half its value"). So it seems that the buyers weren't being total dicks after all, they came up from $1.8M to $4.0M. More than 200% increase... I wish I had such negotiating power when I sold my last house. ;-)

So they're building a new facility, apparently, which will have the virtue of being brand new, not 100 yrs old, with better facilities, layout, wiring & plumbing, etc. The only even slight drawback they seem to be able to come up with is that it's over a mile to the nearest city park. How about making your own park, on the premises? I'm just not getting why all the tears and moaning about.

"There is always inequity in life,"... Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded, and some men never leave the country, and some men are stationed in the Antarctic and some are stationed in San Francisco. It's very hard in military or in personal life to assure complete equality. Life is unfair."

doyner:WhippingBoy: jim32rr: FTFA: The women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. So what's the problem again?

Because outrage.

FTFA: But after losing a two-year fight with a Fortune 500 company determined to buy their beautiful, 104-year-old property and turn it into a boutique hotel - even though it wasn't for sale - the women of the Anna Louise Inn have to leave the neighborhood.

So they are moving from one place where they lived for free to a new place where they will live for free ... still feel that I might be missing something. Please don't say 'emotion'

MBA Whore:I was about to expect people calling for a company boycott, but I've never heard of this company and have no idea what it does.

Why didn't the people of Cinncinati (sp?) cockpunch this bank? I don't know which is worse, the bank's action or the community's "meh" response.

It was a pretty big deal around here but what WS was doing was technically legal and it didn't exactly get national attention until it was too late. The best hope we had was to shame WS into dropping the issue, but with little national attention it was a losing battle. There are plenty of pissed off Cincinnatians.

@Wodan11, good point. When they offered $1.8M that was probably the value MINUS the *required by law to bring up to code improvements* that had not been performed on this structure because it was over 100 freaking years old.

They ended up offering $4M but are going to take a bath on the restoration/bulldozing. Sounds like the gals that ran the place got a pretty sweet deal. If I tried to sell my house and it had 100 year old wiring and plumbing, you can bet I'd take a hit on the price.

These gals got a damn good deal! Hell, they probably wouldn't have to move if they'd been keeping the place up.... if only they'd had a man around to do chores etc.

BumpInTheNight:On one hand, on the other even Bankers haven't gotten the gaul to put a price tag on human life and worse try their damnedest to legally reneg on promises made to cover you in time of need. Both are callous industries worthy of the finest of french revolutions.

jim32rr:So they are moving from one place where they lived for free to a new place where they will live for free ... still feel that I might be missing something. Please don't say 'emotion'

So, an insurance group decides to do some legal shenanigans to acquire your homestead, and after a involved legal battle you get to move from one house to another in a worse location for free. I'm sure you'd be okay with that, because, hey, free house!

Wodan11:Is it just me or does anyone else think TFA didn't give all the pertinent info. It just doesn't add up. I can see how the shelter would say "F no" to the initial offer, but clearly the buyers were willing to negotiate. I get the feeling the shelter might have said "F no, at any price!"

So the buyers resorted to other tactics. But still willing to negotiate... $4M seems to be about what it was worth, maybe a little more (TFA said $1.8M was "less than half its value"). So it seems that the buyers weren't being total dicks after all, they came up from $1.8M to $4.0M. More than 200% increase... I wish I had such negotiating power when I sold my last house. ;-)

So they're building a new facility, apparently, which will have the virtue of being brand new, not 100 yrs old, with better facilities, layout, wiring & plumbing, etc. The only even slight drawback they seem to be able to come up with is that it's over a mile to the nearest city park. How about making your own park, on the premises? I'm just not getting why all the tears and moaning about.

Oh, I dunno, maybe it had something to do with being forced to sell something that wasn't for sale.

It doesn't matter if they did get a reasonable deal in the long run. The problem is, they have NO OBLIGATION to sell, but the asshole company forced them to do so anyway. And given that the assholes managed to drag out the legal battle until they literally couldn't afford to continue fighting, I highly doubt that they actually did get a better deal in the end than the original insulting offer. 1.8m and no legal bills, or 4m but several mil spent fighting? Either way, the company has no right to force ANYONE to part with property that they own and are not interested in selling. It's not the compensation that's the issue. It's the assholes with money using their deep pockets to illegally strongarm people off their own land.

Wodan11:Is it just me or does anyone else think TFA didn't give all the pertinent info. It just doesn't add up. I can see how the shelter would say "F no" to the initial offer, but clearly the buyers were willing to negotiate. I get the feeling the shelter might have said "F no, at any price!"

So the buyers resorted to other tactics. But still willing to negotiate... $4M seems to be about what it was worth, maybe a little more (TFA said $1.8M was "less than half its value"). So it seems that the buyers weren't being total dicks after all, they came up from $1.8M to $4.0M. More than 200% increase... I wish I had such negotiating power when I sold my last house. ;-)

So they're building a new facility, apparently, which will have the virtue of being brand new, not 100 yrs old, with better facilities, layout, wiring & plumbing, etc. The only even slight drawback they seem to be able to come up with is that it's over a mile to the nearest city park. How about making your own park, on the premises? I'm just not getting why all the tears and moaning about.

The bank basically bullied them into selling when they didn't want to. And the new facility is in a much rougher part of town which will make it much harder for some of these women to break their habits and actually recover.

theorellior:BumpInTheNight: On one hand, on the other even Bankers haven't gotten the gaul to put a price tag on human life and worse try their damnedest to legally reneg on promises made to cover you in time of need. Both are callous industries worthy of the finest of french revolutions.

Better solution would have been to join the board of the shelter and help with the renovation of the building and then offer job training and opportunities to the residents. by offering ARM loans at a "reasonable" initial rate. Then, make sure the center can't repay the loans and foreclose.

cherryl taggart:Sim Tree: Whenever I see an ethically questionable company, such as BoA or Walmart, try to buy a new image with signs that say 'we spend $4m on local causes', I can think of these sorts of things.

And what really chaps my backside is knowing that customers are being guilt tripped into contributing every time they go through the check-out lanes.

The word 'No' works just fine for me and the checkout girl doesn't give a crap.

Wodan11:Is it just me or does anyone else think TFA didn't give all the pertinent info. It just doesn't add up. I can see how the shelter would say "F no" to the initial offer, but clearly the buyers were willing to negotiate. I get the feeling the shelter might have said "F no, at any price!"

So the buyers resorted to other tactics. But still willing to negotiate... $4M seems to be about what it was worth, maybe a little more (TFA said $1.8M was "less than half its value"). So it seems that the buyers weren't being total dicks after all, they came up from $1.8M to $4.0M. More than 200% increase... I wish I had such negotiating power when I sold my last house. ;-)

So they're building a new facility, apparently, which will have the virtue of being brand new, not 100 yrs old, with better facilities, layout, wiring & plumbing, etc. The only even slight drawback they seem to be able to come up with is that it's over a mile to the nearest city park. How about making your own park, on the premises? I'm just not getting why all the tears and moaning about.

So, when the initial answer was "No" the bank should have just let it go. But they did not. Instead they sued them into submission. Not sure why you are fine with this.

BumpInTheNight:FormlessOne: PawisBetlog: Why does everyone keep saying bank when it's an insurance group? I work for a bank and we get enough bad press on our own thank you very much.

My bad. "Banker" sounds closer to "asshole", these days, than "insurer", although you are right in that both are typically assholes lately.

On one hand, on the other even Bankers haven't gotten the gaul to put a price tag on human life and worse try their damnedest to legally reneg on promises made to cover you in time of need. Both are callous industries worthy of the finest of french revolutions.

Uh, this is a side issue, but putting a price tag on human life is another way of saying "life insurance." I bought one so that my child would have money if I die.

Better solution would have been to join the board of the shelter and help with the renovation of the building and then offer job training and opportunities to the residents. by offering ARM loans at a "reasonable" initial rate. Then, make sure the center can't repay the loans and foreclose.

Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

No, they are supposed to bribe the town councilmen to claim the property for development under "eminent domain", then acquire it for a much-reduced price.

jim32rr:Bender The Offender: jim32rr: FTFA: The women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. So what's the problem again?

Exactly, what's the problem with exploiting the legal system to steal property from a nonprofit that doesn't want to sell? The poors should've just given their property up to their fiscal betters.

If you have to ask such a stupid farking question, you lack the moral character and human decency to understand the answer.

You sound sad, angry .... much like the women in the article. Perhaps we could find new, more comfortable shelter for you

Thanks for proving my point. You think it's funny to make jokes at the expense of the neediest people in our society. Poverty, abuse, deprivation, and all of the horrors that go along with it are the meat of comic genius like yourself. If you want to find me a new shelter to volunteer in, you're more than welcome to. I already provide basic healthcare services for 3 in the area, but if you know of another, I'm more than willing to offer up more of my time. Our practices provides over $100k a month in free services and we are always willing to help out where we can. Oh, did you think it would be shameful to attend a shelter? do you think there's something inherently insulting about people in need? Of course you did, or course you did. You're a real class act, right from your own pathetic attempts at wit, we can all see what a decent and classy person you are.

jim32rr:doyner: WhippingBoy: jim32rr: FTFA: The women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. So what's the problem again?

Because outrage.

FTFA: But after losing a two-year fight with a Fortune 500 company determined to buy their beautiful, 104-year-old property and turn it into a boutique hotel - even though it wasn't for sale - the women of the Anna Louise Inn have to leave the neighborhood.

So they are moving from one place where they lived for free to a new place where they will live for free ... still feel that I might be missing something. Please don't say 'emotion'

So I can take anything from you that you love so long as I give you back something similar?